Letters to the Editor

’The pot calling the kettle black’

The report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that blames the intelligence errors concerning Iraq on the CIA is like the pot calling the kettle black (“Analysts not pressured on Iraq, report says,” Nation, Friday).

The Democratic senators on the committee are conveniently forgetting that their comrades of the 1970s prohibited the various intelligence agencies from coordinating or cooperating with each other. That virtually ended the ability to share vital information in a timely manner.

It has been mostly Democrats throughout the years who have cut appropriations to the intelligence agencies, including the CIA. That means that the qualified people and equipment to do the job are stretched far too thin. Congress itself has seen to it that there aren’t enough resources to do the job properly.

Political interference also led to the fall of the shah of Iran. The shah was the most stabilizing influence in the Middle East. When that influence left, a dictator like Saddam Hussein in Iraq was able to rise to power. Iran itself became a threat to the world. We can attribute much of the unrest elsewhere in the Middle East to our inept political handling of the shah’s situation.

Then there was President Carter and his CIA director, Stansfield Turner, who apparently thought that “gentlemen didn’t spy on gentlemen.” That meant that any spy networks we had in the Middle East, and elsewhere, were down the tube, and we would henceforth rely on technical means of gathering important information. The lack of informants in Iraq, and the Middle East in general, was the result of this flawed policy.

There is also the tendency of the Clinton years to dissipate our intelligence resources to places like Bosnia that did not threaten our security. Those intelligence resources would have been better used to concentrate on real threats.

If Congress had supported our intelligence effort instead of constantly sabotaging it, we very likely could have avoided September 11. Of course, weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq, it is just a question of what happened to them. Informants would have probably provided the intelligence we required.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the real problem in this mess is not the intelligence agencies, but Congress.

CHARLES E. THOMANN

Annapolis

A place for the Palestinians?

I read the editorial “The situation in Gaza” in your Thursday edition. I am pleased to see your praise of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to withdraw all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip, but I think your editorial overlooked some important circumstances surrounding the plan that have worried Palestinians.

In general, the Gaza withdrawal plan is an important first step in providing the Palestinians with land that, along with the West Bank, they plan to use for an independent Palestinian state. The editorial, however, offered an incomplete description of the reasons behind the skeptical Palestinian response to Mr. Sharon’s plan. It seemed to portray the Palestinians as uncooperative and obstinate even as Mr. Sharon announced a fair and well-intentioned offer of territory for their future state.

Your editorial stated, “While Mr. Sharon has decided to risk his political future on pulling out of Gaza, similar statesmanship has not been in evidence on the Palestinian side.” To refer to Mr. Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal plan only as brave “statesmanship” is misleading for two main reasons: First, Mr. Sharon’s plan specifically denies the Palestinians any input into the decision or manner of withdrawal. To qualify as commendable, statesmanship should require dialogue with the Palestinians on this important step.

Second, Mr. Sharon’s decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip was finalized only after a historic change in U.S. policy — a letter in early 2004 from President Bush articulating a new U.S. view that it is unrealistic to expect all of Israel’s settlements to be dismantled (as part of any agreement on a Palestinian state).

Mr. Bush’s letter has been interpreted to mean that Israel can expect to forever keep many of its more populous settlements in the West Bank, on the largest swath of land the Palestinians plan to use for their state. In light of these circumstances surrounding Mr. Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal plan, it’s hard to characterize the withdrawal as purely “statesmanship.”

The Palestinians need to work to end attacks on Israelis, and Israel needs to have security, but the tenure of settlements must be negotiated with the Palestinians. The United States should not support near-term or long-term Israeli plans that will give permanent status to Israeli settlements because these would deny the Palestinians the land they are to use for their future state.

PETER BOYLE

Arlington

Saving Sudan

The international effort to save the people of Sudan’s remote Darfur province faces many challenges: geographical, logisticalandclimactic. Nonetheless, long distances, heavy rains and dismal road and communication networks can all be tackled given sufficient money and resolve (“Lawmakers call for U.N. to act in Sudan,” Nation, Wednesday). The far bigger obstacles, however, are political, and though daunting, these also can be overcome.

First, President Bush must raise the level of his own engagement on the issue. A televised address to the nation or to the U.N. General Assembly would go far in demonstrating to the world, particularly the Muslim world, that this country places principle well above profit. Mr. Bush must publicly challenge the Khartoum government to protect its own citizens or face real consequences.

Second, the United States must not be shy in using its political muscle to force passage by the Security Council of a strengthened version of a draft resolution on Darfur. Close allies and trading partners, including Pakistan and China, are holding up the resolution’s adoption, and they must be held to account.

Finally, the United States and its European friends must do far more to expand and support the African Union’s efforts to place an armed protection force in Darfur. The success of this initiative will bode well for both the people of Darfur and for Africans as a whole.

CHRIS HENNEMEYER

Director of humanitarian assistance

International Relief and Development Inc.

Rosslyn

Elections in Ukraine

Viktor Yanukovych, once a convicted criminal and now Ukrainian prime minister, cynically boasts, “Ukraine is building a country on European values” (“Prime minister vows to keep elections fair,” World, Friday). But the European countries on Ukraine’s western border know democracy doesn’t just appear on its own — it has to be actively nurtured and supported.

Mr. Yanukovych has a deplorable record on European values and European economic integration. Corruption and bribery run rampant. His government focuses on sweet insider big-business deals with Russian tycoons rather than cooperation with the European Union. With Mr. Yanukovych in office, Ukraine is no closer to World Trade Organization membership than it was two years ago, when he took office.

Ukraine’s increasingly emboldened electorate is set to be the wild card in the country’s fall presidential elections. Voters want genuine European values, and they are set to vote accordingly. Polls continue to show that the lawless regime of President Leonid Kuchma and Mr. Yanukovych will be voted down in the fall.

That is, unless the West stands idly by as democracy is smothered in Ukraine and “crime pays” becomes a European value.

PAUL MELNYK

Kiev